ORDER : By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: (i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash Annexure P-3 as far as it gave notional work charge status to the petitioner. (ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to give work charge status to the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2002 on actual basis alongwith entire consequential benefits along with others incidental benefits thereof such as arrears of salary, GPF deduction, pensionary benefits and seniority etc.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Chainman by the respondents on 02.06.1992. He worked continuously with the respondents in Shimla Division with 240 days in each calendar year. Petitioner was regularized on 20.12.2007. Subsequently, vide Annexure P-3 dated 02.01.2012, petitioner was conferred work charge status w.e.f. 02.06.2002 on notional basis. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled to work charge status in terms of the policy adopted by the State on completion of 10 years continuous service on daily wages and hence the grant of such benefit notionally was not justified. He further seeks all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits and seniority etc. on the premise that he was entitled for conferment of work charge status w.e.f. 02.06.2002 on actual basis and not on notional basis. 4. The respondents have filed the reply. It is submitted that the petitioner has been allowed actual financial benefits w.e.f. 21.12.2009 i.e. for the period three years prior to filing of the petition. The matter regarding grant of pensionary benefits was referred by the Administrative Department to the Finance Department, but the Finance Department rejected the case of petitioner on the ground that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, were applicable only to regular Government employees appointed on or before 14.05.2003. All Government employees appointed on or after 15.05.2003, on regular basis, are covered under the Contributory Pension Scheme and also New Pension Scheme and such employees are governed by the H.P. Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006. Accordingly, the respondents have taken a stand that the work charge service of petitioner cannot be taken as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and seniority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. Accordingly, the respondents have taken a stand that the work charge service of petitioner cannot be taken as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and seniority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM no. 423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as under: “The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317 , as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No. 2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram, decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension” 7. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:- “It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B & R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94(2) PLR 223, also dealt with an identical issue where Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.” 8. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.” 8. Similarly, in CWP No. 2956 of 2019, decided on 13.7.2021, another Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “It has also been contended by respondents that the petitioners were granted work charge status only vide order dated 13.10.2015 and the expression used therein was “work charge regularization”. In any case, be it conferment of work charge status or regularization in favour of petitioner vide office order dated 13.10.2015, the same will not affect the outcome of this petition. In view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Matwar Singh and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of H.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 , the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.” Thus, it is more than settled now that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was conferred work charge status on 02.06.2002 and was followed by his regularization in 2007. Thus, the service of petitioner as work charge employee, followed by regular appointment is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits, hence the distinction drawn by respondents on the ground that petitioner was regularized after the cutoff date i.e. 15.5.2003 cannot be sustained. Merely because respondents termed the conferment of work charge status upon petitioner as notional, the efficacy of status is not reduced. Petitioner had earned such status as a matter of right under the policy of the State Government. 10. Merely because respondents termed the conferment of work charge status upon petitioner as notional, the efficacy of status is not reduced. Petitioner had earned such status as a matter of right under the policy of the State Government. 10. It is apt to reproduce the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-31 of the judgment rendered in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & others 2019 (10) SCC 516 , which read as under:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work-charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefited by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work charged establishment”. 11. Once the work charge employment of the petitioner is held liable to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits to him, as a natural corollary, he will be governed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to him. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the period of work-charge employment of the petitioner, followed by his regular service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits and for that purpose to grant him GPF Number, within a period of three months from today. 13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.